Ajax

Hi everyone, A thoughtful & well constructed article from Archimago. http://archimago.blogspot.com I would urge those wishing to get value for their hard earn dollar to take note of his comments on all "hi-res" offerings but in particular those analogue recordings made prior to digital i.e. prior to the late 80's. Pls don't waste your money buying 24/96 (or 24/192) of classic rock from the 70's and 80's. All you are doing is buying a bigger shell for the same size oyster.

Hi Paul, Boy, you sure are a sucker for punishment I have followed this thread with interest and despite the illogical, and at times personal attacks (on Amir), at no stage can I fault your demeanour. I really don't know how you do it. My experience has been that you will never convince any of these guys that they need measurements because they have the potential to undermine "their" hobby. Who wants to be told that they just spent a heap of doe on a piece of gear that doesn't do anything. Who wants to look like a fool? What confuses me is that Amir is being attacked for measuring outside the audio range, however, when he does and finds an anomaly at say very high frequencies or at very low noise levels he always states it is inconsequential as is outside our audio range and will therefore not affect our enjoyment of the sound. The fact is his equipment is refined enough to do so and he is simply exposing design/implementation weakness in equipment while at the same time applauding good engineering when he finds it. He always states when it is irrelevant. This puts to bed Alex (SandyK) constant babble about "you can't hear it because your equipment isn't good enough" Also measurements are how we learn. Why is this anomaly happening? Can we fix it? e.g. Amir's intermodulation distortion graph showing a hump in the Topping DAC but not in the Benchmark, although both use ESS chips. This resulted in Topping addressing and fixing the issue. I note that Archimago, who is well respected here for his work in debunking MQA (together with Chris & Mansr) has not joined the debate. He is another individual constantly asking for a more rational approach to audio, however, I believe he has learnt his lesson in that that you simply can't change people's belief when they are based on feelings and emotions rather than rational argument. e.g. he has chosen the Hypex NC250 MP as his reference amp, which he constructed as a DIY (it is available assembled from Audiophonics for around Euro 470). You may recall we had a gentleman known as GUTB debunking all Class D amps as rubbish. I called him out only to be told I was being "ridiculous". What's ridiculous is people spending a fortune on amps and power conditioners, special cables decrapifiers etc, when a very knowledgable and well respected audio expert only spends US$600 on his power amp. Engineering, whether civil, mechanical, electrical or audio is based on maths and physics and measurement. If you think I'm having a shot at everyone please know that I have also bought lots of gismos and swallowed all the BS. I certainly don't think I'm an expert, however, I do know how to put together a serious system for well under US$2k (thanks to the many excellent contributors to this site over the past 10 years). Chris wants to know what the "goal" is of measurements. IMO this should be our goal. To educate people outside our fraternity on how they can enjoy excellent sound for the minimum outlay. Hell - if you are starting out what's wrong with a Topping 50s + JBL 305 MkII + Sub (with built in cross over). The source can be an already owned computer with a Tidal subscription or you can stream from your phone with chrome cast audio .... US$700 max for seriously good sound. Good luck with your journey in helping these fellows understand what "bias" is all about and why "measuring" equipment is fundamental to the process of developing and improving any piece of equipment. I admire your tenacity. All the best Ajax PS ... you should be due for your second drink about now!

Hi Everyone, Result from the listening tests below. However, I don't anticipate it will change many people's thinking as time and time again human beings will pick the emotional outcome, or what feels good, over what is rational. What is important for those subjectives amongst us is that Mark Waldrep (Dr Aix) was originally of the view that Hi-res was necessary.i.e. if anything his bias was towards Hi-res, not what his findings show. (I'm taking about playback here, not the extra headroom 24 bit affords while recording). From his email below: "I was not alone in dismissing the Meyer and Moran study. In 2007, I was convinced that high-resolution recording — real HD-Audio — would be perceptible. I recognized the shortcomings of their research and have written extensively about the important of “provenance.” If the original master of an album or track was produced prior to the introduction of high-resolution recording equipment, then it is impossible for that album or track to be considered “hi-res audio” in spite of the best marketing efforts of the labels and others. So after carrying out my own research project, I am forced to agree with the conclusion of the Meyer and Moran research." Researching HD-Audio: The Truth Dr. AIX It's finished. The HD-Audio Challenge II, my sabbatical research project from last fall, has run its course. It's time to start presenting the data and the analysis associated with almost 500 responses. Among those that submitted their results were audiophiles, casual listeners — both young and old, as well as a few professional audio engineers. And while the age of the participants skewed higher than desired and are predominantly male, the truth is that audiophiles tend to be older men. We're the target group that is supposed to care about fidelity. But with Amazon Music HD and other "so-called Hi-Res Audio" streaming and download sites marketing to ALL music listeners, HD-Audio trying to be ubiquitous. But is HD-Audio really sound better or is it merely a sale gimmick? That's what the study was supposed to help determine. Here's the question: Would average music listeners be able to pick out a hi-res audio track over a Red Book standard CD version of the same master recordings using their own playback systems? Paul MacGowan of PS Audio said, "Oh God yeah" in one of his videos. My research survey, conducted over these last 8 months, arrives at a different conclusion. Hi-Res Audio or HD-Audio provides no perceptible fidelity improvement over a standard-resolution CD or file. CD-spec and hi-res audio versions sound identical to vast majority of listeners through systems of all kinds. I'll present the track by track breakdown over the next few articles, but the responses present a picture that is undeniable. In fact, over 25% of the listeners that submitted their results indicated "No Choice" when asked to pick the hi-res track. People were honest and acknowledged that they could not tell the two different versions apart. And those that made a selection admitted that it "was virtually impossible" to detect any differences or "they were essentially guessing" which was which. So it's time to face the hard facts IMHO. Hi-Res Audio or HD-Audio, the much touted next generation in music fidelity, should NOT be a major determining factor when selecting which music to enjoy. As I've often stated in these articles, it is the production path that establishes the fidelity of the final master. Things like how a track was recorded, what processing was applied during recording and mixing, and how the tracks were ultimately mastered. If all of these things are done with maximizing fidelity as the primary goal, a great track will result. However, it's very easy to destroy fidelity at any number of steps in the process. Since the introduction of high-resolution digital methods for recording and reproducing audio emerged in the 1980s and practical distribution formats launched in the late 1990s, research has been conducted to determine whether and why “hi-res audio” is better than existing delivery standards. One of the most well-known among them was the 2007 AES paper authored by Meyer and Moran titled, “Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback”, which concluded that “… test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems.” Basically, what the researchers did was play a commercially distributed “hi-res audio” SACD (one was a DVD-Audio disc) directly through a very good stereo playback system and then through an A/D/A conversion chain running at Red Book specifications 44.1 kHz/16-bits. None of the listeners, which included “professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles,” could perceive any differences. Sounds pretty convincing, right? When I first encountered the Meyer and Moran study in the AES Journal, I faulted their process and paid only cursory attention to the conclusion. I believed that it was critically important to point out the fact that the researchers did not verify that the recordings they played during their study exceeded the fidelity of a compact disc! They assumed that the “hi-res audio” SACD albums being released by the record labels possessed greater fidelity than the previous CD versions. But they didn’t. They couldn't since they were made using analog tape technology. So how is anyone supposed to hear a difference if both versions are identical? When released on the new SACD format, the fidelity of the mostly analog-based tracks — analog provenance — were not even up to Red Book standards. I was not alone in dismissing the Meyer and Moran study. In 2007, I was convinced that high-resolution recording — real HD-Audio — would be perceptible. I recognized the shortcomings of their research and have written extensively about the important of “provenance.” If the original master of an album or track was produced prior to the introduction of high-resolution recording equipment, then it is impossible for that album or track to be considered “hi-res audio” in spite of the best marketing efforts of the labels and others. So after carrying out my own research project, I am forced to agree with the conclusion of the Meyer and Moran research. I'm sure that I will become the target of similar criticism. Someone will insist that my files were't typical, weren't properly processed from 96 to 44.1 kHz, or that participants could have cheated when listening or submitting their results. Additionally, the guru behind MQA — Robert Stuart — wrote in another AES paper, “... there exist audiblesignals that cannot be encoded transparently by a standard CD; and second, an audio chain used for such experiments must be capable of high-fidelity reproduction.” His position is untenable if the results of my survey are true. If real world audiophiles cannot hear a difference then there is no audible difference. More to follow but I'll leave you with another short MQA related item. In a previous article, I explained yet again why MQA is a hoax and not worthy of support by listeners and equipment manufacturers. In fact like hi-res audio, it is a marketing ploy designed to enrich its stake holders. You can read the article by clicking here. I received an email from a reader noting that the entire section of my piece was lifted by a member of a FB group and posted as a comment on their group without attribution of any kind. They omitted my name and there was not link to the original article. It did raise a great deal of controversy and there were lots of comments. MQA is a hot topic. In order to read the post, I have to request and receive permission from the administrators to join the group, which was granted. So I wrote to the administrator: "This is Mark Waldrep. I was informed by one of my blog readers that one of my recent posts about MQA was lifted wholesale from my blog and posted on your FB group...without attribution or a link back to my site. I find this somewhat disturbing and hope that you can ensure that your members respect the work of others. I am happy to contribute to your discussions and even allow quotes from my blog, but this was excessive. Regards, Mark" I received the following responses from ORCHUN CAGLIAN, one of the groups administrators: "I'm removing you from the group I also removed the post and the member too Dont contact me with an attitude again I dont want people like you in my groups." (This is copied from his response ... the lack of punctuation is his.) Frankly, I was surprised at the response. It confirmed to me that some FB admins aren't worth supporting.

Hi Paul, I'm not sure if my attitude is "so negative", however, I truly believe most people, whether they are audiophiles or whatever, allow their emotions to dictate their actions. That is why your thread is so welcome as bias MUST dictate how we perceive the world or a piece of audio equipment. To not acknowledge that we all influenced by what we are told to expect or what see as well as what we hear is full hardy. In my post above I stated "I would also commend those looking for a more rational approach to audio reproduction to view Archimago's Musings' blog and the Audio Science Review website. I find they give a good balance to the more subjective views you find here". This to me this is just common sense as there are no measurements published here just opinions. If you want a balanced view on a piece of gear you need both. It is why stereophile has always publish both the opinion of the reviewer and measurements.

Hi Paul, Your intent in establishing this blog is honourable, and your patience while attempting to enlighten the naysayers such as Alex has been exemplary. Unfortunately the majority of people (not all) put their emotions and beliefs first and will often cherry pick or alter the facts to match them. Very few take a rational approach to a subject that has feelings associated with them. Just look at the rebound in the sharemarket, which assumes that the Pandemic will not affect the economy, despite the evidence that things are gong to get a lot worst before they get better. There is a book by physiologist Mark Manson "Everything if F*cked, a book about Hope" that explores why people adopt unhealthy beliefs and behave as they do despite the facts. https://www.amazon.com.au/Unti-Manson-2/dp/0062888439 I would also commend those looking for a more rational approach to audio reproduction to view Archimago's Musings' blog and the Audio Science Review website. I find they give a good balance to the more subjective views you find here. All the best, Ajax

Hi Paul, Thanks for the effort you have put into this, I believe it is incredibly relevant to how we choose audio equipment. I'm really at a loss to understand why more audio enthusiasts don't recognise (or accept) the negative effect of bias and the need for DBT. Maybe it is just too hard and will spoil their fun but with 30 day return offers I'm not sure why audio clubs for example do not promote them at their regular get togethers. I would have thought manufactures would jump at the chance of having 20-30 of their target market listen to their gear. FYI they just completed a controlled test on the effect of aspirin on bowel cancer in Aus. They were so concerned about the placebo effect (as recipients had to be told what they were being tested for) that the randomised-controlled trial monitored 427 people that given aspirin and 434 people that were given a placebo, for between 10 to 20 years. All of them had Lynch syndrome, an inherited disorder which puts them at higher risk of a range of cancers, including bowel cancer. Of interest they found that two aspirins a day, for an average of 2½ years, reduced the rate of bowel cancer by about 50 per cent. https://www.smh.com.au/national/an-aspirin-a-day-helps-keep-bowel-cancer-away-study-finds-20200612-p5524r.html Anyway my point is that if medical scientists, who are testing for life and death cures, are so concerned about bias why aren't we? Why do audiophiles resist DBT so adamantly. Why do advertises pay celebrities exorbitant amounts of money to promote their products if they don't think they will influence our thinking? Apologies if off your specific topic, just wanted to say a very sincere thanks for your efforts.

Hi Beer, I have not heard any other streamers besides the Auralic Mini & Chrome-cast, however, I share the views of Firedog and Archimago (he doesn't host a forum just a blog) in that if you can guarantee bit perfect into a well engineered DAC (such as a Benchmark) then little else is required except for DSP. Check out Archimago's review of the inexpensive Chrome-cast Audio - his main argument is that it is irrelevant what jitter etc is produced by the streamer (as long as it is bit perfect), with the final result from the DAC being what is important, which makes a lot of sense to me. http://archimago.blogspot.com/2016/02/measurements-google-chromecast-audio_27.html#more Another product that looks very interesting is the relatively new SHD series from Minidsp as it it provides several different combinations (all with built in Dirac DSP) so you can set up your system properly allowing for room acoustics. There are 3 types of units depending on how much flexibility you want. If you are looking for a one box solution you can have the DAC & power built in.... refer to the bottom of this link. https://www.minidsp.com/products/streaming-hd-series/shd-series Check out Amirm's review here: https://www.audio “science” review/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-minidsp-shd-dac-dsp-and-streamer.4286/ Finally, there are several sources of assembled Hypex amps - Nord Acoustics in the UK. Audiophonics in France, March Audio in Aus and Apollon in Austria. I have the Nord NC 500 in a stereo format and it drives my ATC SCM 40s without issue. Audiophonics is the least expensive - about US$600. Here is link to the same hypex module that Archimago reviewed, which in his opinion was "good enough: and is now his reference.. For another US4100 you can get the 502 with a lot more power. I don't know about quality as have only dealt with Colin from Nord, who is a good fellow, and I can vouch forays gear. You can find reviews for all this gear below - the March looks really good (reviewed by Amirm) but expensive relative to Audiophonics' offering. https://www.audiophonics.fr/en/power-amplifier/audiophonics-mpa-s250nc-xlr-class-d-stereo-amplifier-ncore-2x250w-4-ohm-p-14185.html https://www.nordacoustics.co.uk/nord-one-hypex-ncore-mpxxx-stereo-p https://www.marchaudio.net.au/p252 https://www.apollonaudio.com/apollon-ncmp400-hypex-based-class-d-amplifier/ I'm happy to purchase streamers, DACs and amplifiers on line without being heard based on measurements however, speakers are such a personal part of the chain (I really like the the look of the KEF LS50 and you obviously don't) and you definitely must listen prior to purchase preferably in your own home. I have just retired and bought a property in the country, 15mins outside Byron Bay in Australia (check it out), and for fun I'm going to embark on a DIY project and build the Linkwitz designed LXmini by the late great Seigfried Linkwitz. I have absolutely no carpentry skills but it looks like such an interesting project and I have heard the LX minis in a garage with brick walls and concrete floors (hostile environment) and they sounded superb. Anyway lots of ways to skin the cat and I have only touched the surface https://www.linkwitzlab.com/LXmini/Introduction.htm

Hi Beer, Your question is a good one. I don't participate in the forum that much anymore as I favour a more objective approach as propagated by Archimago and Amirm from Audio Science. If you are looking for good gear for less than US$3k then I strongly suggest you visit their sites (as well as Computer Style) to get a more "rounded" view that does not include the nonsense surrounding power supplies, cables and purpose built servers. I have a variety of systems of varying expense. Interface: Personally I find using either my iPhone or an iPad as a remote the most flexible and user friendly approach. Streaming: I stream Tidal incorporated in an Auralic Mini (I have 3 - US$400 each) using the free Lightning DS app or using Spotify Connect. In some systems I use the Mini's internal DAC and in others its digital out. I also use Chromecast Audio (I have 2 - $US30 each). These are both discontinued but you can find them second hand.... both are bit perfect. DAC: 2 x Benchmark DAC2 second hand), a Topping 50Ds and an SMSL M8a Amp: Nord Hypex Ncore 500MP, Parasound Halo A21, Marantz PM 5006 (Integrated), Devialet 200 Speakers: KEF LS50, ATC SCM 40, ATOHM G1 with 2 x SVS SB2000 subs , B&W AM1 (outside), In my experience a combination that would sit within your budget (if you are OK with second hand gear) and provide excellent sound would be: iPhone > Mini > Topping 50s > Hypex NC252mp > KEF LS 50 > SVS SB 2000 You could easily swap out the Mini / Topping 50s for a Chrome-cast / Benchmark combination ... ignore the on-line comments about the jitter from the Chrome-cast as the Benchmark will handle it with ease. You could leave the Topping in and add a second sub to mitigate the room nodes. As we are all aware the speakers and room acoustics will have the biggest bearing on sound quality and is where the majority of the money should be spent, however, If anyone has better suggestions for the streamer I would appreciate hearing about them. Good luck, Ajax

Hi Rexp, Your obviously not a good judge of character

Hi Blake, I take your point, however, I think my promotion of a particular system is little bit different than stating that a whole new technology sucks. I guess "my problem" is how does a first timer know where and how to find good gear. To my knowledge there is no real way to gain the required knowledge and having self appointed experts denounce an emerging technology, which is obviously not crap, is IMO extremely unhelpful. I understand we all have to do some research, and for me that is part of the fun, however, there is so much misleading information that I personally would find it extremely difficult. So, how do you assimilate the required information so you can confidently buy (and set up) gear knowing that much of the information that is available on the internet is mis leading at best.

Sure if you have experience, however, what about the first time guy interested in getting a decent system. Where does he go to find information that is concise and easy to follow that will help him purchase inexpensive gear with great sound.

Hi Chris, I've have no evidence, nor any specific incident, but I seriously doubt GUTB was reinforcing your aim for the forum to be a place to come and learn and have fun. His constant degrading of cost effective and great sounding equipment (such as the hypex D class amps) was misleading to those who have had no experience with such gear. I disagree that it's a totally different issue. Again no evidence to support my proposition, however, do you think it encourages newbies lurking at sites such as AS to become audiophiles when they read that gear below a certain cost point is "crap" and that you have to spend a certain amount of money before you can experience hi-fidelity. The future of our hobby is obviously young people and I would suggest that you would have a lot more becoming audiophiles and "listening" if it was more affordable. My son is a musician and he will do both - listen with one ear piece while skiing (so he can converse with his mates), and also study with music on, but often he will just listen. He does this because he has great sounding and affordable gear, which I helped him buy. I don't think you can expect anyone to sit down and just listen if their source is a bluetooth speaker. My experience has been kids will listen if they have good gear to listen on, however, it's simply to expensive and too much conflicting information to now what to buy. My gut feeling is that it is a chicken and an egg situation. Kids don't listen because they don't know how to buy good quality gear at the right price. Here is a question for you, Where are they going to learnt that?

I still don't think you are actually reading and comprehending what I'm saying. You may be well versed in what you like but this hobby DOES need saving from the likes of GUTB, and the thousands like him, who spout their BS opinions as facts. WHY? Because he and others create so much confusion for newbies. That's all you need to understand. This hobby will continue to die, as Guttenberg alluded to in his opening statement, because no one sits and listens anymore and the music plays second fiddle to another activity i.e. it's all background music and hence the loudness wars. You may know what you like but that has nothing to do with being an adult it's about helping and supporting others who don't know fact from fiction. As John Lennon said "just give me some truth".

Hi Audio doctor, Please see my comments above to the bomber. What's "ridiculous" about getting pissed off with members sprouting nonsense? I have been a member of this forum for nearly 10 years and it was once a place to come and learn and be educated. I have a learnt a lot here, and I am grateful for that, and I don't want to see the forum's standing trashed by members stating BS as fact. I guess my real gripe with GUTB is the arrogance with which he and other state their opinions. Anyway we are talking across each other so I will move on.

Hi audio bomber, Maybe I didn't articulate my view correctly. If you re-read my comments you will see I am actually agreeing with you that "we like what we like", my point is that some members state their opinions as fact (All D class amps suck), and compound it by suggesting that if you don't spend enough money then you can not possibly achieve hi fidelity, which is of course nonsense. This is not about objectives vs subjectives, or any other silly stereotyping, we are all individuals with our own tastes, it is about sprouting BS as the truth. No wonder this hobby (which I love) isn't attracting younger people and is ridiculed by so many.